Entre Roma et Paris

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a longtime Army intelligence
officer, publicly claimed on August 15, 2005 that the 9/11 committee
investigation was a cover-up. "Shaffer said that his unit had contacted
the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell
was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the
FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the
Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work."

"There is only one politically serious explanation of
this now-indisputable fact: powerful forces within the US
military/intelligence complex wanted a terrorist incident on US soil in
order to create the needed shift in public opinion required to embark
on a long-planned campaign of military intervention in Central Asia and
the Middle East. Whether or not they knew the scale of the impending
attacks and what the precise targets would be, they acted in such a way
as to block the arrest of known terrorist operatives and allow them to
carry out their plot."

On August 9, 2005, a front page article in the New York Times
revealed that a military intelligence unit had identified four
September 11 hijackers as Al Qaeda operatives working in the US a year
before the 9/11 attacks.A former intelligence officer in the Pentagon
unit named Able Danger indicated that the intelligence unit was
prevented by the military's Special Operations Command from passing on
the information to the FBI.

"Why was this information concealed?

"Because it points imperiously to the existence of a conspiracy within
one or another intelligence or security agency, not to mention the Bush
White House, to shield the future hijackers and allow some form of
terrorist attack on US soil to occur. All of the efforts of the 9/11
commission—as well as the entire official media and both the Democratic
and Republican parties—have been concentrated on excluding even the
possibility that something more sinister than bureaucratic incompetence
or institutional roadblocks were responsible for an intelligence
failure of staggering dimensions.

"But the evidence pointing to some form of government complicity
continues to mount, despite official whitewashes, cover-ups,
half-truths and lies."

"A report released June 9, 2005 by the FBI's Office of
the Inspector General raises new questions about the role of the US
government in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The internal
FBI study provides several important revelations about how US
intelligence agencies ignored and even suppressed warnings in the
period leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people."

June 13, 2005: "A former Bush team member during his first
administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the
World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department
of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds
comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is
'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition
destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds,
who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the
National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, 'If demolition destroyed
three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the
case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be
compelling.' Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, 'It is
hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause
of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official
wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based
on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct
either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its
own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full
range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.'"

Gore Vidal's essay 'The Enemy Within' was published on October 27, 2002 in the print edition of The Observer.
In it Vidal claims that what he calls a "Bush junta" planned and
carried out the terrorist attacks as a pretext to enact a pre-existing
agenda to invade Afghanistan and attack civil liberties in the U.S.

"We still don't know by whom we were struck that
infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to
many civil libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our
fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government
which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court
did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected
President with the oil and gas Bush-Cheney junta."

Internet radio and print columnist Alex Jones of Infowar.com now states without equivocation:

 

"My friends, the government just didn't have prior
knowledge of the September 11th al Qaeda attacks. They actually funded,
trained, protected, coddled, and shepherded al Qaeda into this country.
Trained many of the terrorists at Pensacola Naval Air Station, U.S.A.,
threatened F.B.I. and defense intelligence officers who tried to stop
al Qaeda, threatened them with arrest. Bush signed now public document
W199I two months before September 11, threatening them with arrest if
they tried to stop al Qaeda."

Autopsy:

No Arabs on Flight 77

By
Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D

I
am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice
in New
Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great
deal that
we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered
various
ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened.
Astute
observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding
names on any
of the flight manifests of the planes that "crashed" on
that day.

A
list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy
by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that
autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still
no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this
crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original
list to make the ruse seem more believable.

La suite sur: http://www.physics911.net/olmsted.htm

On a le choix: se donner une chance de savoir ou enfoncer la tête sous la sable... c'est à nous...

No mistake in day.
It's only that "the day after" one finds out things. And I found a video about what I have always called a plot, a big plot about September the 11th.
Plenty of people around the world know the truth or just smell it, but we've become too lazy and used to any kind of "scoop" to pay any attention to a new one.
The trick is old. In 17th century Machiavelli in "The Prince" explained to Lorenzo de' Medici how to prepare a war with the popular consent.
The trick is old but it's still working. Now it's even filmed in cinemascope by CNN (are they in the plot, too?..) since the very beginning of the story.
On a side they kill and destroy on the other hand they make money on it.... And we say nothing. We all accept. Everything. We are
responsible as much as them, 'cause we don't react, we don't fight, we don't even try to understand. Point is: we don't even want to.
And we are collapsing like the twin towers.

Look at this:

http://www.loosechange911.com/index_main.html

Ca y est. Ce matin je suis allée à la Sorbonne pour rétirer mon dossier. J'ai rendez-vous pour l'inscription administrative Mardi prochain.
De La Sapienza à La Sorbonne .... "on the road"...

"Uno"

Avez vous jamais lu l'oeuvre de Pirandello "Uno, nessuno e centomila"? Ca a beaucoup affaire avec  mon sondage. Je l'ai lu peut-être une centaine de fois  depuis mes 16 ans, et ça m'a inspiré mon post de l'autre jour. Ca n'a pas donné des gros résultats, car les commentaires ne sont pas assez nombreux. Mais, tout de même assez pour remarquer des choses. Tout d'abord, pourquoi "Uno"?

Depuis que je suis née je me connais telle que je suis, ayant changé de coiffure, certe, de façon de m'habiller, et même de penser, mais à la base je suis toujours "moi", et chaque changement m'est bien connu. Pour moi je suis donc, en quelque sorte "immuable", telle que je me vois dans un miroir par example. Mais là commencent les premières surprises. Avez-vous jamais capté  votre image à votre insu? Comme ça, par hasard, en passant devant une vitrine par example...
Eh bien, denouée de la pose que l'on assume inconsciemment à chaque fois que l'on se regarde il nous faut quelques fractions de seconde pour nous "reconnaître" et assumer à nouveau l'image "pour nous" que nous assumons d'habitude. Pour nous nous sommes donc "Un", un "Un" que nous connaissons depuis toujours et qu'il nous arriverait jamais de mettre en doute. Et pourtant cet "Un" a une vie propre que l'on ne lui connait pas, une vie "sans nous" dans laquelle il marche, parle, s'asseois, regarde d'une façon qui lui est propre et que nous pourtant ne connaissons pas, sauf à la "saisir" cette image dans ces fractions de seconde pendant lesquelles ne s'étant pas aperçu de "nous" il continue d'être lui même.

"Centomila" 

Nous ne sommes donc pas seulement "Un" comme nous croyons et comme il nous parait aussi logique de croire. Nous sommes aussi cet "autre" qui existe malgré nous et qui les autres, mais pas nous, voient. Mais là arriva la seconde surprise. Chacun qui nous regarde jette sur "nous" son regard personnel, pour chacun nous sommes donc "Un" comme lui il nous voit, mais pas comme nous nous voyons. Nous pouvons donc être à la fois grand, petit, moyen, le nez tordu (eh oui, le nez compte beaucoup dans cette histoire...) mignon, charmant, antipathique, grossier, triste, gai, selon pas seulement les circonstances dans lesquelles on nous voit, mais aussi la personne qui nous regarde, qui est bien loin de se doûter de tout ça, tout comme nous d'ailleurs, qui croyons naïvement de renvoyer à chacun la même image, sans nous apercevoir de nous être déjà  multiplié en autre cent milles "autres nous" qui agissent envers les autres et dont les autres se font une idée que nous ne pourrons jamais connaître.

"Nessuno" 

C'est bien embarassant devoir admettre l'existence de tous ces "autres" en nous, un "autre" pour nous et cent milles "autres" pour chacun d'entre vous. C'est finalment comme si l'on n'était plus personne. Comme si l'on était "Personne" ("Nessuno"), notre "nous" pour nous et les autres cent milles existant chacun pour soi à notre insu et aussi à l'insu de tous les autres, c'est finalement ne plus exister.

"... Nessun nome. Nessun ricordo oggi del nome di ieri; del nome d'oggi, domani. Se il nome è la cosa; se un nome è in noi il concetto di ogni cosa posta fuori di noi; e senza nome non si ha il concetto, e la cosa resta in noi come cieca, non distinta e non definita; ebbene, questo che portai tra gli uomini ciascuno lo incida, epigrafe funeraria, sulla fronte di quella immagine con cui gli apparvi, e la lasci in pace e non ne parli più. Non è altro che questo, epigrafe funeraria, un nome. Conviene ai morti. A chi ha concluso. Io sono vivo e non concludo. La vita non conclude. E non sa di nomi, la vita. Quest'albero, respiro tremulo di foglie nuove. Sono quest'albero. Albero, nuvola; domani libro o vento: il libro che leggo, il vento che bevo. Tutto fuori, vagabondo.....
.....Pensare alla morte, pregare. C'è pure chi ha questo bisogno, e se ne fanno voce le campane. Io non l'ho più questo bisogno; perché muoio ogni attimo, io, e rinasco nuovo e senza ricordi: vivo e intero, non più in me ma in ogni cosa fuori." - Luigi Pirandello-

• Fin du blog | 02-02-2007
• Je m'excuse | 01-02-2007
• Vizi e stravizi | 31-01-2007
• Pas que des notes.... | 30-01-2007
• Timewasters | 29-01-2007
• ? | 26-01-2007
• Carrefour | 25-01-2007
• débat politique | 24-01-2007
• Random thoughts | 24-01-2007
• 2 choses que je voudrais | 23-01-2007
• 5 choses que vous n'auriez jamais dû savoir sur moi! | 22-01-2007
• Attente............ | 22-01-2007
• Ciao! | 19-01-2007
• poire à poire! | 18-01-2007
• Fine del silenzio stampa! | 17-01-2007